Banagor has a very astute post on how the Muslim world has manipulated the West into accepting their bloody political agenda.
This is exactly the position expressed by the Arabs and Muslims of the world: they have nothing else but their hatred to negotiate with us. They know that as soon as they stop the calls to violence, and let things simmer down for a while, their cause is lost. They understand that if they didn’t continuously call for Genocide, their people would start minding their own business and call for real reform because they will have lost interest in the entire affair. This notion of negotiating these calls for murder should be so clear to all that their cause is not just and never was.
There is no movement that should ever be acceptable that is based on the deliberate murder of innocent children. There is absolutely no excuse for terror.
If we accept that the Israelis somehow stole the land from the Palestinians (which Alan Dershowitz shows is completely untrue in his seminal The Case For Israel), does that justify the rash of deliberate attacks against civilians.
By that logic, then if a militant group of Cherokee Indians were to murder 60 Americans in a Tulsa shopping mall there should be no repercussions. If a group of Basques were to blow up a Paris bistro that should not deserve condemnation? When the IRA detonates an explosive device in London, by the attitude towards the Palestinians, they should not be punished.
The attitude of the West over Israel is a function of pure anti-Semitism. Nowhere else would the use of political violence be accepted and even condoned. Yet Israel is singled out for engaging in actions that are necessary for its self-protection. There is a clear and obvious double standard when it comes to Israel which goes far beyond rational and fair criticism of Israel and acts as a justification for terrorism. It is not anti-Semitic to argue to that Israel’s settlement policy is unnecessary and unwise. It is completely unacceptable to argue that Israel’s settlement policy gives the Palestinians the right to murder innocent Israeli civilians in cafes and pizza parlors.
The Muslim World is using the weakness of the West to provide themselves with an apologia for inhuman acts and ancient prejudices. Unless the Western world can stand against these actions we are cowardly abandoning the values of justice, peace, tolerance, and democracy.
Jesus tapdancing Christ are you totally daft?
If we accept that the Israelis somehow stole the land from the Palestinians…
Correct, they stole it from Jordan, who stole it from the Palestinians. Regardless I would be pissed off if I were living there.
By that logic, then if a militant group of Cherokee Indians were to murder 60 Americans in a Tulsa shopping mall there should be no repercussions.
You’re being stupid Jay, of course there would be. However I doubt that repercussion would be 120 dead Cherokees and a massive wall around three quarters of thier reservation while expanding our lands onto the remaining quarter.
Yet Israel is singled out for engaging in actions that are necessary for its self-protection.
Bullshit. They could have greatly reduced this problem by trying to do something with thier conquered lands other than slowly expand upon them while letting its inhabitants stagnate.
It is completely unacceptable to argue that Israel’s settlement policy gives the Palestinians the right to murder innocent Israeli civilians in cafes and pizza parlors.
You’re right, it doesn’t. The settlement policy will cuase that regardless. Justify != Cause. Get it? It’s really that simple.
Jay: do something to cure your loggorrhoea. This starts to get ridiculous. You might want to stop gazing at FoxNews.
Yes, we all know that if Israel would drop their settlement policy the Palestinians would stop killing Israelis… right… except when that offer was made in 2000 Arafat walked away.
No matter how many accusations are levelled against Israel it doesn’t change the dynamics of the conflict. The Palestinians want every Jew in the Middle East gone. They will not stop the violence until Israel ceases to exist.
Given those conditions, even though the settlement policy is wrong and untenable, it is neither a justification, nor the cause of the intifada.
Yes, we all know that if Israel would drop their settlement policy the Palestinians would stop killing Israelis… right… except when that offer was made in 2000 Arafat walked away.
Now you’re being stupid again.
The Palestinians want every Jew in the Middle East gone.
I would too if I were a Palestinian. And so would you.
Given those conditions, even though the settlement policy is wrong and untenable, it is neither a justification, nor the cause of the intifada.
No, but it is a HUGE motivating factor.
No, those are the facts. In 2000-2001 Barak gave Arafat a deal that would return 97% of the West Bank, the Old City of Jerusalem except for the Jewish and Armenian quarters, and $30 billion in compensation. Even Crown Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia furiously lobbied Arafat to take the deal.
But Arafat didn’t want peace. Peace meant that he would be irrelevant. Arafat is a terrorist, not a statesman. He rejected the deal out of hand.
Even Prince Bandar had this to say about Arafat’s rejection of the Taba Accords:
“Sixteen hundred Palestinians dead so far. And seven hundred Israelis dead. In my judgement not one life of those Israelis and Palestinians dead is justified.” (Emphasis mine. Source: The New Yorker, March 24, 2003, pg. 49.)
I agree with Prince Bandar – Arafat’s rejection of the most generous deal ever given to the Palestinians was completely unconsciable. The justifications for rejection were transparently ridiculous as well.
Arafat rejected peace in 2000, and the lives lost in the needless and hateful intifada ever since are directly attributable to that action.
Right–I’m sure Sharon is doing all he can to be diplomatic and statesmanlike, like when he expressed regret last year that he had promised Bush he wouldn’t assassinate Arafat. That ought to win Yasser over. Or how about when Sharon violated the Oslo Agreements by establishing “buffer zones” between Israeli lands and Palestinian territories? Boy, THAT must have put confidence in the Palestinians concerning Sharon’s attention to the finer points of diplomacy.
Neither side trusts the other. Until a moderate leads on EACH side of the issue, we’re never going to see peace in Israel. Until the Israelis stop acting as occupiers and start acting as overseers, the Palestinians will continue to field suicide attacks. Until the Palestinians formally and loudly reject all forms of terror and change to new leadership, the Israelis will not trust the sincerity of their claims and will not grant them credibility.
The worst thing about the situation in Israel is that both sides are wrong, and both sides are stubborn.
No, those are the facts. In 2000-2001 Barak gave Arafat a deal that would return 97% of the West Bank, the Old City of Jerusalem except for the Jewish and Armenian quarters, and $30 billion in compensation. Even Crown Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia furiously lobbied Arafat to take the deal.
Ok, so I included too much of your statement, let me amend it.
Yes, we all know that if Israel would drop their settlement policy the Palestinians would stop killing Israelis… right…
Now you’re being stupid again.
Does that make more sense?
No, those are the facts. In 2000-2001 Barak gave Arafat a deal that would return 97% of the West Bank, the Old City of Jerusalem except for the Jewish and Armenian quarters, and $30 billion in compensation.
I’m waiting for Sharon to offer the same.
The buffer zones were necessary to protect Israel from terrorist attack, I don’t fault Sharon for that.
I’m not a big fan of Ariel Sharon. I think that he’s reacted badly at times and made actions that were counterproductive for Israeli security. I also think that if the peace process were to be a realistic option Sharon would not be the person to see it through.
That being said, blaming Sharon for the second intifada is simply incorrect. Even before Sharon visited the Temple Mount, the PA has instructed terrorist groups to begin the al-Aqsa intifada before Sharon visited the Temple Mount. As former Democratic Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell himself said in the Mitchell Report “The Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aksa Intifada.”
Furthermore, considering that the Israelis dramatically lowered infant mortality rates in the West Bank in Gaza from 1967-1995 (the period of Israeli occupation) and immunized children and improved the health care and infrastructure of the area the Israelis were certainly benevolent for a group of “occupiers.”
Again, no matter what, the fact is that Israel is and has been ready to negotiate a settlement, and the Palestinians and always have been wanting nothing less than the extermination of the Jews in the Middle East. There is no moral equivalence between the two, and arguing that the IDF acting under strict rules of engagement to protect Israelis is the moral equivalent of a Palestinian suicide bomber killing dozens of innocent Israeli civilians in a deliberate and inhumane attack is an argument that can only be described as a level of anti-Semitic violence.
That makes more sense, but it’s still wrong.
A recent poll found that nearly 60% of Palestinians said that even if a Palestinian state were formed and the settlements ended, they would not end the violence against Israel. Furthermore, as I’ve noted time and time again Arafat was caught in Oslo specifically stating that the goal was not a Palestinian state but the destruction of Israel.